Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Interview with Olivia Bosch

Aired November 09, 2002 - 07:08   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: And we want to talk more about the U.N. resolution and resuming U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq.
Joining me from London is Olivia Bosch, a former weapons inspector for the U.N. Special Commission.

Good morning to you.

OLIVIA BOSCH, FORMER UNSCOM WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good morning.

COSTELLO: Do you wish that you had worked under this resolution?

BOSCH: Well, the resolution that was passed had a unanimous vote. There was expectation that Syria would abstain, and it hadn't. So what we have, as in 1991, when U.N. Security Resolution 687 was passed, then also by strong international community backing, in effect, the obligations that this resolution calls for are in basically the same as in 1991.

That is, that the Iraqi regime has to comply to the ceasefire arrangements, which included the disarming of the weapons of mass destruction and the programs, as well as putting into place an on-site monitoring process.

Six-eight-seven also called for other activities dealing with the reparations to Kuwait, not conducting or participating or facilitating terrorist acts, and a few other kinds of issues.

COSTELLO: Well, Olivia...

BOSCH: But this focus...

COSTELLO: Olivia...

BOSCH: Yes?

COSTELLO: ... having said that...

BOSCH: Yes?

COSTELLO: ... why is this resolution different, or is it? And do you think it will work this time over the one passed in 1991?

BOSCH: The basic difference this time is that -- there are two reasons. One, that the international community are now -- is now looking at the Iraq regime. He has a lot of attention on him. So when the inspectors go in, they -- it would not be unreasonable to expect that they will not receive the same kinds of acts of uncooperation that were particularly journalistically appealing, from the car park incident, and things like that. The -- it was -- one would expect the regime to be seen to be cooperative.

So that's a tick in the plus favor for the inspectors when they do go on.

Secondly, this time the -- there is in the background the continued threat of use of military force. And that particular threat which the United States is most credible at doing is in the background, and therefore just because we've had a unanimous resolution doesn't mean we all go home and just watch the inspectors as before in the last two months, you've had the threat of military force alongside the diplomatic activity, alongside the preparations for the inspectors going in.

So this is the kind of triple, dual-track process that will still need to...

COSTELLO: Understand.

BOSCH: ... be pursued over the next several months.

COSTELLO: Understand. So assuming that Iraq lets weapons inspectors in in the next seven days, they have 30 days to provide a list of weapons. How are we to be sure that the weapons they list are the weapons they really have?

BOSCH: Well, now, here's a little -- one has to actually read the resolution. It is -- one can say weapons, and when you say a weapon, you're talking about an entire system, plus the delivery system. But what's important here is that it calls for weapon programs. And a program means a management structure, facilities, sites, staff, personnel, scientists who've been working on it, stockpiles of agent, dual-capable sites.

So it's not just a weapon. So in reading the resolution, it's calling for a declaration by the Iraqis to provide the programs that they might have...

COSTELLO: Understand.

BOSCH: ... whether or not they might actually have, you know, a whole weapon, yes.

COSTELLO: Well, will the United States match the Iraqi list with U.S. intelligence information?

BOSCH: Well, there is provision that any member state can provide intelligence to the ground when the inspectors go in. That is accepted. The Iraqis are quite concerned, however, that there is no intelligence that then goes back to the member states. And Hans Blix is very careful to make sure that that will be the case. And I think we -- this time we take -- trust of Hans Blix that he will ensure that that does happen. COSTELLO: I guess the concern many Americans have is that Iraq seems to have so much time to hide its alleged weapons. And how can weapons inspectors find them?

BOSCH: Right, yes, of course there are challenges that they will have. The inspectors also will have learned in the meantime, over the last four years, several things. Firstly, the obligation is on the Iraqis to comply, not on the inspectors to find and search. This is a little bit something that was distorted in the first time around, because when the inspectors went in, we all thought this would be over in a matter of a year.

But what we found that the Iraqi regime had quite a sophisticated deception plan in place, so it ended up being a search exercise on the part of the inspectors.

This time, the resolution said this is a final opportunity, new phrasing, new approach there, for the inspectors to see what the Iraqis provide and to verify what the inspectors -- what the Iraqi regime declares.

COSTELLO: OK, let me ask you this final question...

BOSCH: So you want to put it back again -- Yes.

COSTELLO: ... one final question. Because, you know, you assume this will still be sort of a cat-and-mouse game. How big of a breach would Iraq have to -- I mean, how big of a mistake would Iraq have to make for any military action to be taken?

BOSCH: Right. Well, this is something that Hans Blix knows, and he is very responsible for having to do. He has said that he will report any significant events to the Security Council. If there is a breach, he will make the report to the Security Council, and the resolution states it will then convene. And they decide, they make the political decision as to how to deal with that.

It may not be military action, it may be something else.

Hans Blix is very certain, as he mentioned last night in the U.K. on one of our programs here, that he will provide facts. He will want to pursue a very technical approach. And he said something to the effect, Well, if one car has a flat tire, you know, well, that sometimes happens. But if a car has four flat tires, then maybe, you know, we want to think about what that might mean...

COSTELLO: Gotcha.

BOSCH: ... a rather simple analogy. But it's very difficult to assess.

It is -- it will be difficult, and I think they will try their best, the inspectors, to try to help the Iraqis comply with their obligations. And it really does depend on the Iraqis, on what they do.

COSTELLO: Right.

BOSCH: Blix will have a good political sense on that.

COSTELLO: A difficult task ahead, to be sure. Olivia Bosch, thank you very much for joining us this morning.

BOSCH: Yes, yes.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired November 9, 2002 - 07:08   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: And we want to talk more about the U.N. resolution and resuming U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq.
Joining me from London is Olivia Bosch, a former weapons inspector for the U.N. Special Commission.

Good morning to you.

OLIVIA BOSCH, FORMER UNSCOM WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good morning.

COSTELLO: Do you wish that you had worked under this resolution?

BOSCH: Well, the resolution that was passed had a unanimous vote. There was expectation that Syria would abstain, and it hadn't. So what we have, as in 1991, when U.N. Security Resolution 687 was passed, then also by strong international community backing, in effect, the obligations that this resolution calls for are in basically the same as in 1991.

That is, that the Iraqi regime has to comply to the ceasefire arrangements, which included the disarming of the weapons of mass destruction and the programs, as well as putting into place an on-site monitoring process.

Six-eight-seven also called for other activities dealing with the reparations to Kuwait, not conducting or participating or facilitating terrorist acts, and a few other kinds of issues.

COSTELLO: Well, Olivia...

BOSCH: But this focus...

COSTELLO: Olivia...

BOSCH: Yes?

COSTELLO: ... having said that...

BOSCH: Yes?

COSTELLO: ... why is this resolution different, or is it? And do you think it will work this time over the one passed in 1991?

BOSCH: The basic difference this time is that -- there are two reasons. One, that the international community are now -- is now looking at the Iraq regime. He has a lot of attention on him. So when the inspectors go in, they -- it would not be unreasonable to expect that they will not receive the same kinds of acts of uncooperation that were particularly journalistically appealing, from the car park incident, and things like that. The -- it was -- one would expect the regime to be seen to be cooperative.

So that's a tick in the plus favor for the inspectors when they do go on.

Secondly, this time the -- there is in the background the continued threat of use of military force. And that particular threat which the United States is most credible at doing is in the background, and therefore just because we've had a unanimous resolution doesn't mean we all go home and just watch the inspectors as before in the last two months, you've had the threat of military force alongside the diplomatic activity, alongside the preparations for the inspectors going in.

So this is the kind of triple, dual-track process that will still need to...

COSTELLO: Understand.

BOSCH: ... be pursued over the next several months.

COSTELLO: Understand. So assuming that Iraq lets weapons inspectors in in the next seven days, they have 30 days to provide a list of weapons. How are we to be sure that the weapons they list are the weapons they really have?

BOSCH: Well, now, here's a little -- one has to actually read the resolution. It is -- one can say weapons, and when you say a weapon, you're talking about an entire system, plus the delivery system. But what's important here is that it calls for weapon programs. And a program means a management structure, facilities, sites, staff, personnel, scientists who've been working on it, stockpiles of agent, dual-capable sites.

So it's not just a weapon. So in reading the resolution, it's calling for a declaration by the Iraqis to provide the programs that they might have...

COSTELLO: Understand.

BOSCH: ... whether or not they might actually have, you know, a whole weapon, yes.

COSTELLO: Well, will the United States match the Iraqi list with U.S. intelligence information?

BOSCH: Well, there is provision that any member state can provide intelligence to the ground when the inspectors go in. That is accepted. The Iraqis are quite concerned, however, that there is no intelligence that then goes back to the member states. And Hans Blix is very careful to make sure that that will be the case. And I think we -- this time we take -- trust of Hans Blix that he will ensure that that does happen. COSTELLO: I guess the concern many Americans have is that Iraq seems to have so much time to hide its alleged weapons. And how can weapons inspectors find them?

BOSCH: Right, yes, of course there are challenges that they will have. The inspectors also will have learned in the meantime, over the last four years, several things. Firstly, the obligation is on the Iraqis to comply, not on the inspectors to find and search. This is a little bit something that was distorted in the first time around, because when the inspectors went in, we all thought this would be over in a matter of a year.

But what we found that the Iraqi regime had quite a sophisticated deception plan in place, so it ended up being a search exercise on the part of the inspectors.

This time, the resolution said this is a final opportunity, new phrasing, new approach there, for the inspectors to see what the Iraqis provide and to verify what the inspectors -- what the Iraqi regime declares.

COSTELLO: OK, let me ask you this final question...

BOSCH: So you want to put it back again -- Yes.

COSTELLO: ... one final question. Because, you know, you assume this will still be sort of a cat-and-mouse game. How big of a breach would Iraq have to -- I mean, how big of a mistake would Iraq have to make for any military action to be taken?

BOSCH: Right. Well, this is something that Hans Blix knows, and he is very responsible for having to do. He has said that he will report any significant events to the Security Council. If there is a breach, he will make the report to the Security Council, and the resolution states it will then convene. And they decide, they make the political decision as to how to deal with that.

It may not be military action, it may be something else.

Hans Blix is very certain, as he mentioned last night in the U.K. on one of our programs here, that he will provide facts. He will want to pursue a very technical approach. And he said something to the effect, Well, if one car has a flat tire, you know, well, that sometimes happens. But if a car has four flat tires, then maybe, you know, we want to think about what that might mean...

COSTELLO: Gotcha.

BOSCH: ... a rather simple analogy. But it's very difficult to assess.

It is -- it will be difficult, and I think they will try their best, the inspectors, to try to help the Iraqis comply with their obligations. And it really does depend on the Iraqis, on what they do.

COSTELLO: Right.

BOSCH: Blix will have a good political sense on that.

COSTELLO: A difficult task ahead, to be sure. Olivia Bosch, thank you very much for joining us this morning.

BOSCH: Yes, yes.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com